Jump to content

Talk:The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.79.198.253 (talk) at 02:45, 30 June 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Links and Commentary to add to this developing story

Response of lawyer "Charles Carreon" to the bad publicity he and his client received for the legal threat: Golijan, Rosa (2012). "Cartoonist turns lawsuit threat into $100K charity fundraiser". Retrieved 2012-06-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Blog discussion of the incident, by a lawyer: "How Dare You! That's The Wrong Kind of Bullying!". 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

As this incident develops, probably more should be added.

Mother seducing bear image

How about adding a copy of the mother/bear image to the article? I don't think The Oatmeal would object, and it would add some visual interest as well as being the most awesome (and probably only) image of bear seduction on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.177.85 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order for us to upload that image onto Wikipedia, we need Matthew Inman's explicit permission. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, we need Inman's permission to allow the image to be redistributed and redownloaded at will, including for commercial gain, in order to comply with Wikipedia's Creative Commons licensing. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Carreon

Someone identifying themselves as Tara Carreon, Charles Carreon's wife [1][2] has been responding to comments. It is unknown if they are legit. CallawayRox (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary/nonreliable sources

I've been cleaning up the references in this article and I've noticed there's a lot of primary and/or self-published sources, which shouldn't be used in favor of secondary or tertiary sources. There were also at least two references to Reddit and a tweet, which I removed (social networks are not a reliable source). Primary sources should be deleted outright unless the information they'd be supporting wouldn't be referenced at all.

There's also two links to blogs on the "The incident also spurred commentary..." line, which is itself a little WP:WEASEL-y. Are there other, more reputable sources to back this up? Otherwise it should be removed entirely.

I'm also going to remove the quote from FunnyJunk entirely, as not only is it a primary source backing it up, but the link itself is also dead. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response comment: Both of those sources are independent from the subjects of the article (one is a newspaper, the other is a legal blog that's been up for years and quoted in major news sources), and both discuss the dispute in depth and then raise legitimate issues about the DMCA (and filing DMCA complaints) beyond the Oatmeal/FunnyJunk dispute itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.82.50 (talk) 15:48, June 17, 2012 (UTC)‎
Although secondary sources are important, you mischaracterize policy. Primary sources are often appropriate for supporting simple facts, like the amount of money raised, or the fact that The Oatmeal sent a response to the demand letter, which are not open to interpretation (see WP:PRIMARY). As such I've removed some but not all of the {{psc}} tags. Dcoetzee 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FunnyJunk owner "Admin"

According to Reddit comments the owner of FunnyJunk goes by the name "Admin." His real name is unknown. "The administrator behind FunnyJunk has chosen to remain anonymous, his lawyer tells Comic Riffs."[3] CallawayRox (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's mom

Inman says that it's FunnyJunk's mom in the drawing. Carreon persistently takes offense at it being his mom. CallawayRox (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IndieGoGo or Indiegogo

There are two different casing patterns used in this article for IndieGoGo (Indiegogo), both of which I have seen in the wild (id est, out on the web). The Indiegogo page makes no direct reference to the proper casing, and "IndieGoGo" redirects to the Indiegogo page. Which is the correct case patterning for the company — name-casing or camelCase/Pascal case? Whichever it is, we should adjust the non-conforming version found in the article (unless it is within a direct quote, of course). — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

It seems that FunnyJunk are no longer involved in this and there will be no case directly involving them. Should we be looking to rename the article The Oatmeal and Charles Carreon legal dispute now that is almost certain that any case that gets as far as an actual court will be brought by Carreon personally? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 parts, Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Bad‎ and Carreon v. Inman et al‎. FunnyJunk is background at this point. CallawayRox (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that because FunnyJunk has faded out of the spotlight, the current arcticle title no longer makes sense, and that there should probably be an arcticle on Carreon v. Inman et al, but I'm not sure about the rest of it. Any suggestions? 70.79.198.253 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal_dispute&oldid=499995919"